Retarded atheists in their rejection of God propose that the universe arose from literal nothingness. Their "evidence" of this is that particles can arise from the vacuum of space. Unfortunately for the atheist, recent science has revealed the vacuum of space isn't pure nothingness since it contains dark energy, dark matter and electromagnetic fields (amongst others) and therefore the emergence of something from the vacuum is not proof at all of the idea that something can come from nothing.

And if it were possible for a universe to truly arise from nothingness when literally nothing exists (which is impossible but let's entertain the idea for argument's sake) then why can't a god form from nothingness as well? Atheists believe consciousness in the universe formed by itself so why would it be irrational to believe in a consciousness that formed outside of the universe? In fact it would be a given in the atheist's view here since they believe infinite particles are literally forming from nothingness outside of the universe all the time without break and how can they argue that one "universe" did not form with an actual consciousness and is akin to something we might call a god? As we can already see, atheism is a self defeating philosophy.

Given that the universe had a beginning (something that The Big Bang theory tells us), we know it had to come from something since its an effect. The cause I argue would be an eternal energy: God and we can argue this energy is a conscious and intelligent being given the fine tuning of the universe that's agreed upon by physicists. Random processes and mindlessness, given infinity, would still never produce such order in a constant mathematical alignment and observation of nature reveals this.

Some atheists try to get out of the "a universe from nothing" argument their position puts them in by arguing that this universe came from a prior one and that universe came from a prior one and so on for infinity but that refuses addressing where the first universe came from. Ultimately there has to a beginning otherwise there's no start.

So we're left with either "something from nothing" (which as explained above, is an idea that easily supports the existence of God too) or the common sense that the universe came from a cause that was eternal (again, as explained above, something that most certainly would have to be God rather than mindlessness).

Atheism is wrong and atheists continue to remain scientifically ignorant of physics, some still even believing in the now debunked "steady state theory" of the universe (which proposes that it never had a beginning but this is refuted by evidence showing an origin point of the universe along with other evidences).

Atheism, in its denial of gods, reaches other explanations by a fallacious reasoning. When the atheist denies a creator being responsible for the origin of the universe they assert that the universe was either eternal (which has been debunked by science, see The Big Bang theory, Holographic principle, second law of thermodynamics and the borde guth vilenkin theorem) or proceeded from nothing.

We know thanks to science, that the universe is not eternal and that it had a beginning, a origin and is finite (again, see The Big Bang theory, Holographic principle, second law of thermodynamics and the borde guth and vilenkin theorem). So the eternal universe hypothesis is debunked and thrown out of the window.

In philosophy and logic, nothing does nothing. Nothing by definition does nothing. This is where atheists attempt to use science (and fail horribly) to explain this illogical evidenceless belief. Atheists assert that quantum mechanics prove that particles can come into existence from nothing and therefore it would be possible for universes to spring into existence from nothing too. They cite the vacuum of space as evidence of this. However the vacuum isn't actually "nothing" and contains low amounts of energy and has atoms.

"What about chain universes and the multiverse!" the atheist cries. Both are science fiction concepts and both move the goal-post and avoid addressing the point of origin. Logically speaking, there had to be a beginning point for everything to initiate.

I propose a god who is eternal for this origin point mainly because the natural laws, the values of the universe and the cosmology point to fine tuning (which is agreed upon by physicists, see the goldilock principles of the universe). Mathematically speaking, it would be statistically impossible for blind natural force to achieve the equilibrium behind the values for the four fundamental forces. Logically speaking we only observe that level of design from intelligence hence why the atheist's belief makes no sense. Atheism is wrong.

Sources:

The universe had a beginning and is not eternal:

(Origins of the Universe) science.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science/space/universe/origins-universe- article/

(The Origins of the Universe) www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/astronomy/origins.htm

(Inflation) www.astro.caltech.edu/~ccs/Ay21/guth_inflation.pdf

Vacuum of space is not nothing:

(What is a vacuum? Is it matter?) education.jlab.org/qa/vacuum_02.html

(Is The Vacuum Empty? The Higgs Field And The Dark Energy) www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070510111445.htm

Fine tuning of the universe:

Is the universe fine tuned for us? (www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/Fine Tune.pdf)

Atheism, in its denial of gods, reaches other explanations by a fallacious deductive reasoning. When the atheist denies a creator being responsible for the origin of the universe they assert that the universe was either eternal (which has been debunked by science, see The Big Bang theory, Holographic principle, second law of thermodynamics and the borde guth vilenkin theorem) or proceeded from nothing.

We know thanks to science, that the universe is not eternal and that it had a beginning, a origin and is finite (again, see The Big Bang theory, Holographic principle, second law of thermodynamics and the borde guth and vilenkin theorem). So the eternal universe hypothesis is debunked and thrown out of the window.

In philosophy and logic, nothing does nothing. Nothing by defintion does nothing. This is where atheists attempt to use science (and fail horribly) to explain this illogical evidenceless belief. Atheists assert that quantum mechanics prove that particles can come into existence from nothing and therefore it would be possible for universes to spring into existence from nothing too. They cite the vacuum of space as evidence of this. However the vacuum isn't actually "nothing" and contains low amounts of energy and has atoms.

When we've evaluted atheism in this manner we see that it has no grounding. Occam's razor and other logical principles such as causality reveals the concept of "something from nothing" to be illogical.

Science, meanwhile, still doesn't say that nothing can do something. Some atheist scientists have created hypothesizes and universe models for such a concept but they are founded on nothing more than their speculations inspired by their atheistic world-view.

"What about chain universes and the multiverse!" the atheist cries. Both are science fiction concepts and both move the goal-post and avoid addressing the point of origin. Logically speaking, there had to be a beginning point for everything to initiate. I propose a god who is eternal for this origin point mainly because the natural laws, the values of the universe and the cosmology point to fine tuning (which is agreed upon by physicists, see the goldilock principles of the universe). Mathematically speaking, it would be statistically impossible for blind natural force to acheive the equilibrium behind the values for the four fundemental forces. Logically speaking we only observe that level of design from intelligence hence why the atheist's belief makes no sense.

Atheism fails to be a logical world-view and is inspired mainly by prayers not being answered, evil existing in the world and an atheist's irrational hatred towards religion. Prayers not being answered but a clear fine tuning of the universe point to deism, not to atheism. In conclusion we find that the chicken came first before an egg. Atheism is wrong.